Prognostic Impact of Prostate-Specific Antigen at 6 Months After Radiotherapy in Localized Prostate Cancer: An Individual Patient Data Analysis of Randomized Trials.

PURPOSE: We sought to evaluate the prognostic impact of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) at 6 months after completion of radiotherapy (RT) in patients treated with RT alone, RT plus short-term (st; 3-6 months), and RT plus long-term (lt; 24-36 months) androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individual patient data were obtained from 16 randomized trials evaluating RT ± ADT for localized prostate cancer (PCa) between 1987 and 2011. The lowest PSA recorded within 6 months after RT completion was identified and categorized as < or ≥0.1 ng/mL. The primary outcomes were metastasis-free survival (MFS), PCa-specific mortality (PCSM), and overall survival (OS), from 12 months after random assignment. RESULTS: Ninety-eight percent (n = 2,339/2,376) of patients allocated to RT alone, 84% (n = 4,756/5,658) allocated to RT + stADT, and 77% (n = 1,258/1,626) allocated to RT + ltADT had PSA ≥0.1 ng/mL within 6 months after completing RT. PSA ≥0.1 ng/mL was associated with lower MFS and OS and higher PCSM among patients allocated to RT ± ADT (RT - MFS: hazard ratio [HR], 2.24 [95% CI, 1.21 to 4.16]; PCSM: subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR], 1.82 [0.51 to 6.49]; OS: HR, 1.72 [0.97 to 3.05]; RT + stADT - MFS: HR, 1.27 [1.12 to 1.44]; PCSM: sHR, 2.10 [1.52 to 2.92]; OS: HR, 1.26 [1.11 to 1.44]; RT + ltADT - MFS: HR, 1.58 [1.27 to 1.96]; PCSM: sHR, 1.97 [1.11 to 3.49]; OS: HR, 1.59 [1.27 to 1.99]). Five-year MFS rates among patients allocated to RT, RT + stADT, and RT + ltADT were 91% versus 79%, 83% versus 76%, and 87% versus 74%, respectively, based on PSA < or ≥0.1 ng/mL. CONCLUSION: PSA ≥0.1 ng/mL within 6 months after RT completion was prognostic for lt outcomes in patients treated with RT ± ADT for localized PCa. This can be used to counsel patients treated with RT ± ADT and in guiding clinical trial design evaluating novel systemic therapies with RT + ADT as well as (de)intensification strategies.

When to randomize patients in a randomized controlled trial?

The timing of randomization should be considered carefully in the context of each trial because it has implications for the particular research question answered. In most instances, randomization should be delayed until as close as practically possible to the moment of intervention. In some cases, early randomization may offer certain advantages, but trialists should balance these, including any administrative complexity or inconvenience, against the risk of avoidable protocol violations and avoidable drop out.

Getting our ducks in a row: The need for data utility comparisons of healthcare systems data for clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Better use of healthcare systems data, collected as part of interactions between patients and the healthcare system, could transform planning and conduct of randomised controlled trials. Multiple challenges to widespread use include whether healthcare systems data captures sufficiently well the data traditionally captured on case report forms. "Data Utility Comparison Studies" (DUCkS) assess the utility of healthcare systems data for RCTs by comparison to data collected by the trial. Despite their importance, there are few published UK examples of DUCkS. METHODS-AND-RESULTS: Building from ongoing and selected recent examples of UK-led DUCkS in the literature, we set out experience-based considerations for the conduct of future DUCkS. Developed through informal iterative discussions in many forums, considerations are offered for planning, protocol development, data, analysis and reporting, with comparisons at "patient-level" or "trial-level", depending on the item of interest and trial status. DISCUSSION: DUCkS could be a valuable tool in assessing where healthcare systems data can be used for trials and in which trial teams can play a leading role. There is a pressing need for trials to be more efficient in their delivery and research waste must be reduced. Trials have been making inconsistent use of healthcare systems data, not least because of an absence of evidence of utility. DUCkS can also help to identify challenges in using healthcare systems data, such as linkage (access and timing) and data quality. We encourage trial teams to incorporate and report DUCkS in trials and funders and data providers to support them.

Rationale and design of the THIRST Alert feasibility study: a pragmatic, single-centre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial of an interruptive alert for oral fluid restriction in patients treated with intravenous furosemide.

INTRODUCTION: Acute heart failure (HF) is a major cause of unplanned hospitalisation characterised by excess body water. A restriction in oral fluid intake is commonly imposed on patients as an adjunct to pharmacological therapy with loop diuretics, but there is a lack of evidence from traditional randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to support the safety and effectiveness of this intervention in the acute setting.This study aims to explore the feasibility of using computer alerts within the electronic health record (EHR) system to invite clinical care teams to enrol patients into a pragmatic RCT at the time of clinical decision-making. It will additionally assess the effectiveness of using an alert to help address the clinical research question of whether oral fluid restriction is a safe and effective adjunct to pharmacological therapy for patients admitted with fluid overload. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: THIRST (Randomised Controlled Trial within the electronic Health record of an Interruptive alert displaying a fluid Restriction Suggestion in patients with the treatable Trait of congestion) Alert is a single-centre, parallel-group, open-label pragmatic RCT embedded in the EHR system that will be conducted as a feasibility study at an National Health Service (NHS) hospital in London. The clinical care team will be invited to enrol suitable patients in the study using a point-of-care alert with a target sample size of 50 patients. Enrolled patients will then be randomised to either restricted or unrestricted oral fluid intake. Two primary outcomes will be explored (1) the proportion of eligible patients enrolled in the study and (2) the mean difference in oral fluid intake between randomised groups. A series of secondary outcomes are specified to evaluate the effectiveness of the alert, adherence to the randomised treatment allocation and the quality of data generated from routine care, relevant to the outcomes of interest. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by Riverside Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 22/LO/0889) and will be published on completion. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05869656.

Using healthcare systems data for outcomes in clinical trials: issues to consider at the design stage.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare system data (HSD) are increasingly used in clinical trials, augmenting or replacing traditional methods of collecting outcome data. This study, PRIMORANT, set out to identify, in the UK context, issues to be considered before the decision to use HSD for outcome data in a clinical trial is finalised, a methodological question prioritised by the clinical trials community. METHODS: The PRIMORANT study had three phases. First, an initial workshop was held to scope the issues faced by trialists when considering whether to use HSDs for trial outcomes. Second, a consultation exercise was undertaken with clinical trials unit (CTU) staff, trialists, methodologists, clinicians, funding panels and data providers. Third, a final discussion workshop was held, at which the results of the consultation were fed back, case studies presented, and issues considered in small breakout groups. RESULTS: Key topics included in the consultation process were the validity of outcome data, timeliness of data capture, internal pilots, data-sharing, practical issues, and decision-making. A majority of consultation respondents (n = 78, 95%) considered the development of guidance for trialists to be feasible. Guidance was developed following the discussion workshop, for the five broad areas of terminology, feasibility, internal pilots, onward data sharing, and data archiving. CONCLUSIONS: We provide guidance to inform decisions about whether or not to use HSDs for outcomes, and if so, to assist trialists in working with registries and other HSD providers to improve the design and delivery of trials.

Large-scale meta-genome-wide association study reveals common genetic factors linked to radiation-induced acute toxicities across cancer types.

BACKGROUND: This study was designed to identify common genetic susceptibility and shared genetic variants associated with acute radiation-induced toxicity across 4 cancer types (prostate, head and neck, breast, and lung). METHODS: A genome-wide association study meta-analysis was performed using 19 cohorts totaling 12 042 patients. Acute standardized total average toxicity (STATacute) was modelled using a generalized linear regression model for additive effect of genetic variants, adjusted for demographic and clinical covariates (rSTATacute). Linkage disequilibrium score regression estimated shared single-nucleotide variation (SNV-formerly SNP)-based heritability of rSTATacute in all patients and for each cancer type. RESULTS: Shared SNV-based heritability of STATacute among all cancer types was estimated at 10% (SE = 0.02) and was higher for prostate (17%, SE = 0.07), head and neck (27%, SE = 0.09), and breast (16%, SE = 0.09) cancers. We identified 130 suggestive associated SNVs with rSTATacute (5.0 × 10‒8 < P < 1.0 × 10‒5) across 25 genomic regions. rs142667902 showed the strongest association (effect allele A; effect size ‒0.17; P = 1.7 × 10‒7), which is located near DPPA4, encoding a protein involved in pluripotency in stem cells, which are essential for repair of radiation-induced tissue injury. Gene-set enrichment analysis identified 'RNA splicing via endonucleolytic cleavage and ligation' (P = 5.1 × 10‒6, P = .079 corrected) as the top gene set associated with rSTATacute among all patients. In silico gene expression analysis showed that the genes associated with rSTATacute were statistically significantly up-regulated in skin (not sun exposed P = .004 corrected; sun exposed P = .026 corrected). CONCLUSIONS: There is shared SNV-based heritability for acute radiation-induced toxicity across and within individual cancer sites. Future meta-genome-wide association studies among large radiation therapy patient cohorts are worthwhile to identify the common causal variants for acute radiotoxicity across cancer types.

Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency's "Consultation on proposals for legislative changes for clinical trials": a response from the Trials Methodology Research Partnership Adaptive Designs Working Group, with a focus on data sharing.

In the UK, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency consulted on proposals "to improve and strengthen the UK clinical trials legislation to help us make the UK the best place to research and develop safe and innovative medicines". The purpose of the consultation was to help finalise the proposals and contribute to the drafting of secondary legislation. We discussed these proposals as members of the Trials Methodology Research Partnership Adaptive Designs Working Group, which is jointly funded by the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health and Care Research. Two topics arose frequently in the discussion: the emphasis on legislation, and the absence of questions on data sharing. It is our opinion that the proposals rely heavily on legislation to change practice. However, clinical trials are heterogeneous, and as a result some trials will struggle to comply with all of the proposed legislation. Furthermore, adaptive design clinical trials are even more heterogeneous than their non-adaptive counterparts, and face more challenges. Consequently, it is possible that increased legislation could have a greater negative impact on adaptive designs than non-adaptive designs. Overall, we are sceptical that the introduction of legislation will achieve the desired outcomes, with some exceptions. Meanwhile the topic of data sharing - making anonymised individual-level clinical trial data available to other investigators for further use - is entirely absent from the proposals and the consultation in general. However, as an aspect of the wider concept of open science and reproducible research, data sharing is an increasingly important aspect of clinical trials. The benefits of data sharing include faster innovation, improved surveillance of drug safety and effectiveness and decreasing participant exposure to unnecessary risk. There are already a number of UK-focused documents that discuss and encourage data sharing, for example, the Concordat on Open Research Data and the Medical Research Council's Data Sharing Policy. We strongly suggest that data sharing should be the norm rather than the exception, and hope that the forthcoming proposals on clinical trials invite discussion on this important topic.

Monitoring metrics over time: Why clinical trialists need to systematically collect site performance metrics.

Background: Over the last decade, there has been an increasing interest in risk-based monitoring (RBM) in clinical trials, resulting in a number of guidelines from regulators and its inclusion in ICH GCP. However, there is a lack of detail on how to approach RBM from a practical perspective, and insufficient understanding of best practice. Purpose: We present a method for clinical trials units to track their metrics within clinical trials using descriptive statistics and visualisations. Research Design: We suggest descriptive statistics and visualisations within a SWAT methodology. Study Sample: We illustrate this method using the metrics from TEMPER, a monitoring study carried out in three trials at the MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL. Data Collection: The data collection for TEMPER is described in DOI: 10.1177/1740774518793379. Results: We show the results and discuss a protocol for a Study-Within-A-Trial (SWAT 167) for those wishing to use the method. Conclusions: The potential benefits metric tracking brings to clinical trials include enhanced assessment of sites for potential corrective action, improved evaluation and contextualisation of the influence of metrics and their thresholds, and the establishment of best practice in RBM. The standardisation of the collection of such monitoring data would benefit both individual trials and the clinical trials community.

Biochemical Recurrence Surrogacy for Clinical Outcomes After Radiotherapy for Adenocarcinoma of the Prostate.

PURPOSE: The surrogacy of biochemical recurrence (BCR) for overall survival (OS) in localized prostate cancer remains controversial. Herein, we evaluate the surrogacy of BCR using different surrogacy analytic methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individual patient data from 11 trials evaluating radiotherapy dose escalation, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) use, and ADT prolongation were obtained. Surrogate candidacy was assessed using the Prentice criteria (including landmark analyses) and the two-stage meta-analytic approach (estimating Kendall's tau and the R2). Biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS, time from random assignment to BCR or any death) and time to BCR (TTBCR, time from random assignment to BCR or cancer-specific deaths censoring for noncancer-related deaths) were assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 10,741 patients were included. Dose escalation, addition of short-term ADT, and prolongation of ADT duration significantly improved BCR (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71 [95% CI, 0.63 to 0.79]; HR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.59]; and HR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.61], respectively). Adding short-term ADT (HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.84 to 0.99]) and prolonging ADT (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.78 to 0.94]) significantly improved OS, whereas dose escalation did not (HR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.87 to 1.11]). BCR at 48 months was associated with inferior OS in all three groups (HR, 2.46 [95% CI, 2.08 to 2.92]; HR, 1.51 [95% CI, 1.35 to 1.70]; and HR, 2.31 [95% CI, 2.04 to 2.61], respectively). However, after adjusting for BCR at 48 months, there was no significant treatment effect on OS (HR, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.96 to 1.27]; HR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.87 to 1.06] and 1.00 [95% CI, 0.90 to 1.12], respectively). The patient-level correlation (Kendall's tau) for BCRFS and OS ranged between 0.59 and 0.69, and that for TTBCR and OS ranged between 0.23 and 0.41. The R2 values for trial-level correlation of the treatment effect on BCRFS and TTBCR with that on OS were 0.563 and 0.160, respectively. CONCLUSION: BCRFS and TTBCR are prognostic but failed to satisfy all surrogacy criteria. Strength of correlation was greater when noncancer-related deaths were considered events.

Qualitative data sharing practices in clinical trials in the UK and Ireland: towards the production of good practice guidance.

Background: Data sharing enables researchers to conduct novel research with previously collected datasets, thus maximising scientific findings and cost effectiveness, and reducing research waste. The value of sharing, even de-identified, quantitative data from clinical trials is well recognised with a moderated access approach recommended. While substantial challenges to sharing quantitative data remain, there are additional challenges for sharing qualitative data in trials. Incorporating the necessary information about how qualitative data will be shared into already complex trial recruitment and consent processes proves challenging. The aim of this study was to explore whether and how trial teams share qualitative data collected as part of the design, conduct, analysis, or delivery of clinical trials. Methods: Phase 1 involved semi-structured, in-depth qualitative interviews and focus groups with key trial stakeholder groups including trial managers and clinical trialists (n=3), qualitative researchers in trials (n=9), members of research funding bodies (n=2) and trial participants (n=1). Data were analysed using thematic analysis. In Phase 2, we conducted a content analysis of 16 participant information leaflets (PIL) and consent forms (CF) for trials that collected qualitative data. Results: Three key themes were identified from our Phase 1 findings: ' Understanding and experiences of the potential benefits of sharing qualitative data from trials', 'Concerns about qualitative data sharing', and ' Future guidance and funding'. In phase 2, the PILs and CFs received revealed that the benefits of data sharing for participants were only explained in two of the study documents. Conclusions: The value of sharing qualitative data was acknowledged, but there are many uncertainties as to how, when, and where to share this data. In addition, there were ethical concerns in relation to the consent process required for qualitative data sharing in trials. This study provides insight into the existing practice of qualitative data sharing in trials.

Site staff perspectives on communicating trial results to participants: Cost and feasibility results from the Show RESPECT cluster randomised, factorial, mixed-methods trial.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Sharing trial results with participants is an ethical imperative but often does not happen. Show RESPECT (ISRCTN96189403) tested ways of sharing results with participants in an ovarian cancer trial (ISRCTN10356387). Sharing results via a printed summary improved patient satisfaction. Little is known about staff experience and the costs of communicating results with participants. We report the costs of communication approaches used in Show RESPECT and the views of site staff on these approaches. METHODS: We allocated 43 hospitals (sites) to share results with trial participants through one of eight intervention combinations (2 × 2 × 2 factorial; enhanced versus basic webpage, printed summary versus no printed summary, email list invitation versus no invitation). Questionnaires elicited data from staff involved in sharing results. Open- and closed-ended questions covered resources used to share results and site staff perspectives on the approaches used. Semi-structured interviews were conducted. Interview and free-text data were analysed thematically. The mean additional site costs per participant from each intervention were estimated jointly as main effects by linear regression. RESULTS: We received questionnaires from 68 staff from 41 sites and interviewed 11 site staff. Sites allocated to the printed summary had mean total site costs of sharing results £13.71/patient higher (95% confidence interval (CI): -3.19, 30.60; p = 0.108) than sites allocated no printed summary. Sites allocated to the enhanced webpage had mean total site costs £1.91/patient higher (95% CI: -14, 18.74; p = 0.819) than sites allocated to the basic webpage. Sites allocated to the email list had costs £2.87/patient lower (95% CI: -19.70, 13.95; p = 0.731) than sites allocated to no email list. Most of these costs were staff time for mailing information and handling patients' queries. Most site staff reported no concerns about how they had shared results (88%) and no challenges (76%). Most (83%) found it easy to answer queries from patients about the results and thought the way they were allocated to share results with participants would be an acceptable standard approach (76%), with 79% saying they would follow the same approach for future trials. There were no significant effects of the randomised interventions on these outcomes. Site staff emphasised the importance of preparing patients to receive the results, including giving opt-in/opt-out options, and the need to offer further support, particularly if the results could confuse or distress some patients. CONCLUSIONS: Adding a printed summary to a webpage (which significantly improved participant satisfaction) may increase costs to sites by ~£14/patient, which is modest in relation to the cost of trials. The Show RESPECT communication interventions were feasible to implement. This information could help future trials ensure they have sufficient resources to share results with participants.

Which patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer benefit from docetaxel: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data from randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Adding docetaxel to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves survival in patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, but uncertainty remains about who benefits most. We therefore aimed to obtain up-to-date estimates of the overall effects of docetaxel and to assess whether these effects varied according to prespecified characteristics of the patients or their tumours. METHODS: The STOPCAP M1 collaboration conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. We searched MEDLINE (from database inception to March 31, 2022), Embase (from database inception to March 31, 2022), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (from database inception to March 31, 2022), proceedings of relevant conferences (from Jan 1, 1990, to Dec 31, 2022), and ClinicalTrials.gov (from database inception to March 28, 2023) to identify eligible randomised trials that assessed docetaxel plus ADT compared with ADT alone in patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Detailed and updated individual participant data were requested directly from study investigators or through relevant repositories. The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were progression-free survival and failure-free survival. Overall pooled effects were estimated using an adjusted, intention-to-treat, two-stage, fixed-effect meta-analysis, with one-stage and random-effects sensitivity analyses. Missing covariate values were imputed. Differences in effect by participant characteristics were estimated using adjusted two-stage, fixed-effect meta-analysis of within-trial interactions on the basis of progression-free survival to maximise power. Identified effect modifiers were also assessed on the basis of overall survival. To explore multiple subgroup interactions and derive subgroup-specific absolute treatment effects we used one-stage flexible parametric modelling and regression standardisation. We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019140591. FINDINGS: We obtained individual participant data from 2261 patients (98% of those randomised) from three eligible trials (GETUG-AFU15, CHAARTED, and STAMPEDE trials), with a median follow-up of 72 months (IQR 55-85). Individual participant data were not obtained from two additional small trials. Based on all included trials and patients, there were clear benefits of docetaxel on overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0·79, 95% CI 0·70 to 0·88; p<0·0001), progression-free survival (0·70, 0·63 to 0·77; p<0·0001), and failure-free survival (0·64, 0·58 to 0·71; p<0·0001), representing 5-year absolute improvements of around 9-11%. The overall risk of bias was assessed to be low, and there was no strong evidence of differences in effect between trials for all three main outcomes. The relative effect of docetaxel on progression-free survival appeared to be greater with increasing clinical T stage (pinteraction=0·0019), higher volume of metastases (pinteraction=0·020), and, to a lesser extent, synchronous diagnosis of metastatic disease (pinteraction=0·077). Taking into account the other interactions, the effect of docetaxel was independently modified by volume and clinical T stage, but not timing. There was no strong evidence that docetaxel improved absolute effects at 5 years for patients with low-volume, metachronous disease (-1%, 95% CI -15 to 12, for progression-free survival; 0%, -10 to 12, for overall survival). The largest absolute improvement at 5 years was observed for those with high-volume, clinical T stage 4 disease (27%, 95% CI 17 to 37, for progression-free survival; 35%, 24 to 47, for overall survival). INTERPRETATION: The addition of docetaxel to hormone therapy is best suited to patients with poorer prognosis for metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer based on a high volume of disease and potentially the bulkiness of the primary tumour. There is no evidence of meaningful benefit for patients with metachronous, low-volume disease who should therefore be managed differently. These results will better characterise patients most and, importantly, least likely to gain benefit from docetaxel, potentially changing international practice, guiding clinical decision making, better informing treatment policy, and improving patient outcomes. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council and Prostate Cancer UK.

Salvage Radiation Therapy After Radical Prostatectomy: Analysis of Toxicity by Dose-Fractionation in the RADICALS-RT Trial.

PURPOSE: Emerging data indicate comparable disease control and toxicity of normal postoperative fractionation and moderate hypofractionation radiation therapy (RT) in prostate cancer. In RADICALS-RT, patients were planned for treatment with either 66 Gy in 33 fractions (f) over 6.5 weeks or 52.5 Gy in 20f over 4 weeks. This non-randomized, exploratory analysis explored the toxicity of these 2 schedules in patients who had adjuvant RT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Information on RT dose was collected in all patients. The Radiation Therapy Oncology Group toxicity score was recorded every 4 months for 2 years, every 6 months until 5 years, then annually until 15 years. Patient-reported data were collected at baseline and at 1, 5, and 10 years using standard measures, including the Vaizey fecal incontinence score (bowel) and the International Continence Society Male Short-Form questionnaire (urinary incontinence). The highest event grade was recorded within the first 2 years and beyond 2 years and compared between treatment groups using the χ² test. RESULTS: Of 634 patients, 217 (34%) were planned for 52.5 Gy/20f and 417 (66%) for 66 Gy/33f. In the first 2 years, grade 1 to 2 cystitis was reported more frequently among the 66 Gy/33f group (52.5 Gy/20f: 20% vs 66 Gy/33f: 30%; P = .04). After 2 years, grade 1 to 2 cystitis was reported in 16% in the 66-Gy group and 9% in the 52.5-Gy group (P = .08). Other toxic effects were similar in the 2 groups, and very few patients had any grade 3 to 4 toxic effects. Patients reported slightly higher urinary and fecal incontinence scores at 1 year than at baseline, but no clinically meaningful differences were reported between the 52.5 Gy/20f and 66 Gy/33f groups. Patient-reported health was similar at baseline and at 1 year and similar between the 52.5 Gy/20f and 66 Gy/33f groups. CONCLUSIONS: Severe toxic effects were rare after prostate bed radiation therapy with either 52.5 Gy/20f or 66 Gy/33f. Only modest differences were recorded in toxic effects or in patient-reported outcomes between these 2 schedules.

Healthcare systems data in the context of clinical trials - A comparison of cardiovascular data from a clinical trial dataset with routinely collected data.

BACKGROUND: Routinely-collected healthcare systems data (HSD) are proposed to improve the efficiency of clinical trials. A comparison was undertaken between cardiovascular (CVS) data from a clinical trial database with two HSD resources. METHODS: Protocol-defined and clinically reviewed CVS events (heart failure (HF), acute coronary syndrome (ACS), thromboembolic stroke, venous and arterial thromboembolism) were identified within the trial data. Data (using pre-specified codes) was obtained from NHS Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) and National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research (NICOR) HF and myocardial ischaemia audits for trial participants recruited in England between 2010 and 2018 who had provided consent. The primary comparison was trial data versus HES inpatient (APC) main diagnosis (Box-1). Correlations are presented with descriptive statistics and Venn diagrams. Reasons for non-correlation were explored. RESULTS: From 1200 eligible participants, 71 protocol-defined clinically reviewed CVS events were recorded in the trial database. 45 resulted in a hospital admission and therefore could have been recorded by either HES APC/ NICOR. Of these, 27/45 (60%) were recorded by HES inpatient (Box-1) with an additional 30 potential events also identified. HF and ACS were potentially recorded in all 3 datasets; trial data recorded 18, HES APC 29 and NICOR 24 events respectively. 12/18 (67%) of the HF/ACS events in the trial dataset were recorded by NICOR. CONCLUSION: Concordance between datasets was lower than anticipated and the HSD used could not straightforwardly replace current trial practices, nor directly identify protocol-defined CVS events. Further work is required to improve the quality of HSD and consider event definitions when designing clinical trials incorporating HSD.

A DELPHI study priority setting the remaining challenges for the use of routinely collected data in trials: COMORANT-UK.

BACKGROUND: Researchers are increasingly seeking to use routinely collected data to support clinical trials. This approach has the potential to transform the way clinical trials are conducted in the future. The availability of routinely collected data for research, whether healthcare or administrative, has increased, and infrastructure funding has enabled much of this. However, challenges remain at all stages of a trial life cycle. This study, COMORANT-UK, aimed to systematically identify, with key stakeholders across the UK, the ongoing challenges related to trials that seek to use routinely collected data. METHODS: This three-step Delphi method consisted of two rounds of anonymous web-based surveys and a virtual consensus meeting. Stakeholders included trialists, data infrastructures, funders of trials, regulators, data providers and the public. Stakeholders identified research questions or challenges that they considered were of particular importance and then selected their top 10 in the second survey. The ranked questions were taken forward to the consensus meeting for discussion with representatives invited from the stakeholder groups. RESULTS: In the first survey, 66 respondents yielded over 260 questions or challenges. These were thematically grouped and merged into a list of 40 unique questions. Eighty-eight stakeholders then ranked their top ten from the 40 questions in the second survey. The most common 14 questions were brought to the virtual consensus meeting in which stakeholders agreed a top list of seven questions. We report these seven questions which are within the following domains: trial design, Patient and Public Involvement, trial set-up, trial open and trial data. These questions address both evidence gaps (requiring further methodological research) and implementation gaps (requiring training and/or service re-organisation). CONCLUSION: This prioritised list of seven questions should inform the direction of future research in this area and should direct efforts to ensure that the benefits in major infrastructure for routinely collected data are achieved and translated. Without this and future work to address these questions, the potential societal benefits of using routinely collected data to help answer important clinical questions will not be realised.

Clinical testing of transcriptome-wide expression profiles in high-risk localized and metastatic prostate cancer starting androgen deprivation therapy: an ancillary study of the STAMPEDE abiraterone Phase 3 trial.

Metastatic and high-risk localized prostate cancer respond to hormone therapy but outcomes vary. Following a pre-specified statistical plan, we used Cox models adjusted for clinical variables to test associations with survival of multi-gene expression-based classifiers from 781 patients randomized to androgen deprivation with or without abiraterone in the STAMPEDE trial. Decipher score was strongly prognostic (p<2×10-5) and identified clinically-relevant differences in absolute benefit, especially for localized cancers. In metastatic disease, classifiers of proliferation, PTEN or TP53 loss and treatment-persistent cells were prognostic. In localized disease, androgen receptor activity was protective whilst interferon signaling (that strongly associated with tumor lymphocyte infiltration) was detrimental. Post-Operative Radiation-Therapy Outcomes Score was prognostic in localized but not metastatic disease (interaction p=0.0001) suggesting the impact of tumor biology on clinical outcome is context-dependent on metastatic state. Transcriptome-wide testing has clinical utility for advanced prostate cancer and identified worse outcomes for localized cancers with tumor-promoting inflammation.

Lack of transparent reporting of trial monitoring approaches in randomised controlled trials: A systematic review of contemporary protocol papers.

BACKGROUND: Monitoring is essential to ensure patient safety and data integrity in clinical trials as per Good Clinical Practice. The Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials Statement and its checklist guides authors to include monitoring in their protocols. We investigated how well monitoring was reported in published 'protocol papers' for contemporary randomised controlled trials. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed to identify eligible protocol papers published in selected journals between 1 January 2020 and 31 May 2020. Protocol papers were classified by whether they reported monitoring and, if so, by the details of monitoring. Data were summarised descriptively. RESULTS: Of 811 protocol papers for randomised controlled trials, 386 (48%; 95% CI: 44%-51%) explicitly reported some monitoring information. Of these, 20% (77/386) reported monitoring information consistent with an on-site monitoring approach, and 39% (152/386) with central monitoring, 26% (101/386) with a mixed approach, while 14% (54/386) did not provide sufficient information to specify an approach. Only 8% (30/386) of randomised controlled trials reported complete details about all of scope, frequency and organisation of monitoring; frequency of monitoring was the least reported. However, 6% (25/386) of papers used the term 'audit' to describe 'monitoring'. DISCUSSION: Monitoring information was reported in only approximately half of the protocol papers. Suboptimal reporting of monitoring hinders the clinical community from having the full information on which to judge the validity of a trial and jeopardises the value of protocol papers and the credibility of the trial itself. Greater efforts are needed to promote the transparent reporting of monitoring to journal editors and authors.

Sequencing of Androgen-Deprivation Therapy of Short Duration With Radiotherapy for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer (SANDSTORM): A Pooled Analysis of 12 Randomized Trials.

PURPOSE: The sequencing of androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) with radiotherapy (RT) may affect outcomes for prostate cancer in an RT-field size-dependent manner. Herein, we investigate the impact of ADT sequencing for men receiving ADT with prostate-only RT (PORT) or whole-pelvis RT (WPRT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individual patient data from 12 randomized trials that included patients receiving neoadjuvant/concurrent or concurrent/adjuvant short-term ADT (4-6 months) with RT for localized disease were obtained from the Meta-Analysis of Randomized trials in Cancer of the Prostate consortium. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was performed with propensity scores derived from age, initial prostate-specific antigen, Gleason score, T stage, RT dose, and mid-trial enrollment year. Metastasis-free survival (primary end point) and overall survival (OS) were assessed by IPTW-adjusted Cox regression models, analyzed independently for men receiving PORT versus WPRT. IPTW-adjusted Fine and Gray competing risk models were built to evaluate distant metastasis (DM) and prostate cancer-specific mortality. RESULTS: Overall, 7,409 patients were included (6,325 neoadjuvant/concurrent and 1,084 concurrent/adjuvant) with a median follow-up of 10.2 years (interquartile range, 7.2-14.9 years). A significant interaction between ADT sequencing and RT field size was observed for all end points (P interaction < .02 for all) except OS. With PORT (n = 4,355), compared with neoadjuvant/concurrent ADT, concurrent/adjuvant ADT was associated with improved metastasis-free survival (10-year benefit 8.0%, hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.79; P < .0001), DM (subdistribution HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.82; P = .0046), prostate cancer-specific mortality (subdistribution HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.54; P < .0001), and OS (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.83; P = .0001). However, in patients receiving WPRT (n = 3,049), no significant difference in any end point was observed in regard to ADT sequencing except for worse DM (HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.20 to 2.05; P = .0009) with concurrent/adjuvant ADT. CONCLUSION: ADT sequencing exhibits a significant impact on clinical outcomes with a significant interaction with field size. Concurrent/adjuvant ADT should be the standard of care where short-term ADT is indicated in combination with PORT.